DLMT Training Material — Correction Sheet

For Master Trainers · Municipal General Election 2026 (Rajasthan)

📍 Looking for a file? Go here first → START_HERE_en — what to open when, out of 43 files, by role and by date.

For: Master Trainers (District and Block level) and training officers Deadline: 🚨 Scrutiny is 01.09.2026 — items 2, 3, 4 and 7 (age reckoning) bite that day. Item 1 is for poll day, 09 and 11.09.2026.

What this sheet is: the points in the existing DLMT slides that must be changed before training, and — just as important — the points that must NOT be changed, even though they look suspicious.

Each item gives: the slide · the exact text printed on it · the correct text · the source · a classification · and what to say in the classroom.

📌 Hindi parallel: DLMT प्रशिक्षण सामग्री — सुधार पत्रक. The DLMT slides themselves are in Hindi; the Hindi sheet is the operational one. This English version is for record, review and non-Hindi readers.

---

🚦 Classification — four different things. Never merge them.

🔴 This classification is the most important part of this sheet. A false error is as damaging as a missed one. If material that was correct gets "corrected", every other finding on this sheet loses its credibility too.

---

PART A — ❌ Do not run training until these are changed

Item 1 — PP2_p018 (mock poll) — "the voter will press BALLOT" ❌

Printed on the slide, point 3:

"मतदाता कंट्रोल यूनिट के बैलट सेक्शन पर BALLOT बटन दबाएगा…" ("The voter will press the BALLOT button on the ballot section of the Control Unit. On pressing BALLOT, a red Busy lamp will glow on the display section and a green light on the BU.")

✅ Correct text:

"The Third Polling Officer will press the BALLOT button on the ballot section of the Control Unit."

Source: - Margdarsika ch.9(6)1 — "the 'Ballot' button shall be pressed by the Third Polling Officer in charge of the Control Unit" - Margdarsika ch.14(3)10 — the Third Polling Officer "shall permit the vote to be cast by pressing the 'Ballot' button" - Rule 32-B(6) — the CU shall be kept in full view of the Presiding Officer and the agents - Order 1408 dated 04.02.2026 — "the polling officer in charge of the Control Unit"

What to say in class:

"The voter never touches the Control Unit." The CU sits on the Presiding Officer's table, in the agents' view. The voter goes only to the Ballot Unit inside the voting compartment.

If taught as printed: a party that has memorised "the voter presses BALLOT" will do exactly that on poll day — breaching both the custody of the machine and the secrecy of the vote.

⚠️ Read Item 10 in Part C alongside this. The older decks' line "the Presiding Officer presses BALLOT" is not an error. Do not conflate the two.

---

Item 1-A — 🚨 PP1_p066 — the pre-Ballot indelible-ink check is missing ❌ (new — 22.08.2026)

When it bites: 09 and 11.09.2026, at every booth, for every voter.

PP1_p066 — the Third Polling Officer's duties, the five points printed on the slide (I read the page image myself):

🚨 Point 2 runs straight into point 3 — there is no ink check between them at all.

✅ What it should contain — order 1408 dated 04.02.2026, para 2 (I read the page image myself):

"The polling officer in charge of the Control Unit shall ensure that, before pressing the Ballot button of the Control Unit, the mark of indelible ink is fully applied on the elector's finger. Further, where voting is by ballot box, the Fourth Assistant Polling Officer shall ensure the mark is fully applied before the elector records the vote."

Statutory basis: rule 35-A(2)(a), second proviso — "no voter shall be allowed to vote unless he has allowed a mark to be put on his left forefinger with an indelible ink."

✅ The fix — insert a new point between 2 and 3 on PP1_p066:

"2-A. Before pressing the Ballot button, satisfy yourself that the mark of indelible ink is fully applied on the voter's left forefinger. If it is absent or incomplete, send the voter back to the Second Polling Officer — do not press the Ballot button."

⚠️ Do not over-correct — do NOT delete PP1_p067

PP1_p067 says the ink mark is checked "when the elector returns from the voting compartment". That is not wrong in itself — the Margdarsika ch.3 item 16 requires a re-check on exit that the ink has dried.

🚨 They are two different checks and both are needed — (a) before entry — the mark is applied (order 1408) · (b) on exit — the mark has dried (Margdarsika) The task is to add the missing step to PP1_p066, not to remove PP1_p067.

💡 Two more points from order 1408 worth teaching: (1) The ink is applied with a brush, from the free end of the left forefinger's nail down to below the first joint (para 1, with a diagram). (2) A copy of the order must be kept in the Presiding Officer's kit (para 3) — check that it is. (Supersedes letter 5493 dated 26.07.2015)

---

Item 1-B — 🚨 PP2_p010 (point 4) — the slide-switch rule has a hole at exactly 16, and omits NOTA ❌ (new — 22.08.2026)

When it bites: 09 and 11.09.2026, at the Presiding Officer's machine inspection. The slide sits under "Preparation of the EVM by the Presiding Officer" and reads "…he shall also inspect that —", so it is a checklist applied to an RO-prepared machine.

Printed on the slide, point 4 (I read the page image myself):

"If the number of candidates for the election is up to 15, the slide switch of the ballot unit in use shall be set at position '1'; and if the number of candidates is more than 16, the slide switch shall be set at positions 2, 3, 4 on the ballot unit according to the number of candidates."

🚨 Three defects

✅ Correct position — different by machine

On additional ballot units the switch follows the unit's own serial order — 2nd BU = 2, 3rd = 3, 4th = 4.

🚨 It fails in both directions

🚨 So this slide can pass a wrongly configured machine and fail a correct one.

✅ The paragraph numbers have now been opened — 22.08.2026

This note previously said "I did not open 2184's paragraph numbering in this check." I have now read all 18 pages of order 2184 dated 26.02.2026 myself. The draft claim held up. The governing text reads —

Para (2), page 1 (_r/new/o2184_p01.png):

"For conducting an election with a Multi Post Single Vote (MPSV) or Multi Post Multi Vote (MPMV) machine, (up to 15 candidates including NOTA) one Control Unit and one Ballot Unit will be required. … Whereas for the other model MK-V/M3A … (up to 16 candidates including NOTA) one Control Unit and one Ballot Unit will be required."

🚨 Paras 9(vi) and 9(vii), page 8 — this is the governing text for the slide switch (_r/new/o2184_p08.png):

"If an MPSV/MPMV model machine is being used and the number of candidates is up to 15 including NOTA, the Ballot Unit's slide switch will be set to position 1. Where there are more than 15 candidates including NOTA, the second Ballot Unit's slide switch will be set to 2, and likewise the third to 3 and the fourth to 4." "If an MK-V/M3A model machine is being used … up to 16 including NOTA … position 1 … more than 16 … 2, 3 and 4."

✅ So the order itself states the rule with "including NOTA" and separately for each machine family — the slide omits both. The order also carries the sequence out to four Ballot Units.

---

Item 1-C — ⚠️ PP1_p031 — "no relief polling agent after 3 p.m." — no basis found, and the deck contradicts itself

Class: ⚠️ doubtful — read this before calling it unlawful.

Last line of PP1_p031 (I read the page image myself):

"Relief polling agents shall not be permitted after 03:00 p.m."

🚨 And the very next slide, PP1_p032, says the opposite (also read by me):

"Polling agents may enter the polling station at least one hour before the poll begins. If a polling agent arrives late, he may take part in the further proceedings at the polling station."

What is certain and what is not

🚨 So do not teach this as "unlawful". Say instead — "Two slides in the deck conflict, and I could not find such a time limit in the rules. Until the Commission or the DEO clarifies in writing, do not turn away a validly appointed relief agent who holds Form 9."

Why it matters: the poll runs 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. A 3 p.m. gate would shut the agent out of the close of poll, the sealing of the machine and the Form 14-ग stage — precisely where the Margdarsika wants them.

💡 One thing on PP1_p032 is correct and should stay: "A person in government service shall not act as a polling agent." — this matches s.134A, which covers election, polling and counting agents alike.

---

Item 1-D — 🚨🚨 PP2_p019 → PP2_p020 — the mock poll has no CLOSE step before RESULT ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

When it bites: 5:30 a.m. on 09 and 11.09.2026, at the very end of the mock poll.

The numbered steps as printed (I read both page images myself):

🔴 Step 6 goes straight to step 7 (RESULT). There is no CLOSE step at all.

This is not merely an omission — the machine will throw an error

[MPSV Ch.7] — error-message table, row 3(iv):

Error	Cause	Remedy
INVALID OPERATION + interrupted beep — on pressing RESULT-I	the poll was not closed by pressing CLOSE	press CLOSE first

➡ So the deck's step 7 cannot work on its own — the CU returns INVALID OPERATION.

✅ The correct sequence — already recorded in our own material

mock poll  →  TOTAL  →  🚨 CLOSE  →  RESULT-I  →  reconcile  →  CLEAR  →  OFF

On pressing CLOSE the display runs: CLOSING → NUMBER OF POSTS → DTE/TME → TOTAL VOTERS → RJSCU…/RJSDM… → POLL CLOSED [MPSV Ch.5].

✅ Source: EVM/hi §3.1 PRO handbook steps 6–7 · master-trainer slides

🚨 Insert a new step after step 6: "Now remove the cap of the CLOSE button and press CLOSE → POLL CLOSED will be displayed → put the cap back." Renumber the later steps accordingly.

---

Item 1-E — 🚨 PP2_p021 — three wrong numbers in a single sentence ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

As printed on the deck (I read the page image myself):

"The Presiding Officer will prepare the mock-poll certificate in the form given at Annexure 19. He will attach this prepared Annexure 19 to Annexure-7, and will record the details of the mock poll … at point number 25 of the Presiding Officer's diary (Annexure-8)."

🔴 All three numbers are wrong

🚨 Writing it at point 25 is the worst of the three

🔴 If a Presiding Officer records a routine mock poll at point 25, the record will state that the poll at that station was rendered void by the machine. That can trigger an entirely unnecessary inquiry at RO level.

✅ Source: EVM/hi §5 — the full 30-item Annexure-7 diary list · Margdarsika [MG Ch.4-A(4),(7),(13)]

---

Item 1-F — 🚨 PP1_p048 — the voter slip is given to PO-1, but it is PO-2's job ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

Three bullets under the heading "First Polling Officer — principal responsibilities":

Under the Margdarsika [MG Ch.2(1)], issuing the slip is not among PO-1's nine duties at all. Duty 9 reads: "Once identity is established the voter will go to the Second Polling Officer."

And under [MG Ch.2(2)] for PO-2: "Voter slip — PO-2 will prepare it and give it to the voter…" PO-3 admits a voter only on a slip issued by PO-2.

🚨 The practical danger: if PO-1 starts issuing slips, the voter receives the slip before the register entry, the signature/thumb impression and the indelible ink — the very sequence that Item 1-A also exists to protect.

✅ The correct sequence (teach this)

PO-1  identify + check left index finger for ink  →  call the details aloud
PO-2  entry in Form 14-A + signature/thumb  →  🚨 indelible ink  →  🚨 voter slip
PO-3  check slip + check ink mark  →  Ballot button

⛔ At the same time, do NOT change this — one reviewer claim I have rejected

The review alleged that this slide omits three exceptions to the indelible-ink rule — "if there is a Lok Sabha/Vidhan Sabha mark, use the right index finger" and "in a re-poll, the left middle finger."

🔴 I found no basis for either in the municipal material. The Margdarsika's exception sequence is for a missing finger (any finger of the left hand → right index → …), not for a Lok Sabha mark or a re-poll. Those are Election Commission of India general-election practices.

➡ The slide's "left index finger" line is correct — leave it alone. Move only the third bullet (white slip) into PO-2's column.

---

Item 1-G — 🚨 PP1_p008 — the two battery criteria have been swapped — this hits Balotra directly ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

When it bites: at despatch, and on the morning of the poll, when the CU is checked.

The same deck says two different things two pages apart

✅ The correct position — two machines, two different indicators

🚨 Why this is dangerous in Balotra: Balotra will receive MPSV/MPMV (press note 6722 — see BALOTRA_DISTRICT §2). Those CUs never display a percentage at all — they display HIGH/LOW mode. A Presiding Officer trained on PP1_p008 will hunt at 5:30 a.m. for a number that will never appear, and may send a perfectly good CU away to be "changed".

✅ Fix: replace the PP1_p008 line with the PP1_p010 wording — "battery in HIGH mode (MPSV/MPMV), or above 95% (M3A) — otherwise have the CU changed."

⛔ One claim about this same page I have rejected — the END button

The review said the line "the END button of all BUs should be MASKed" is wrong.

🔴 That line is entirely correct — do not touch it. Order 2184, point 9(xxi): "Since only the member's seat is being contested on MPSV and MPMV machines, no partial voting is possible. Therefore have the "END" button on the MPSV/MPMV machine MASKED."

⚠️ ECIL's general manual says to leave the last BU's END button un-masked — that does not apply to this election. Changing the deck's line would bring back precisely the mistake that point 9(xxi) was written to prevent.

---

Item 1-H — 🚨 PP1_p067 — the ink check is being made after the vote has been cast ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

As printed on the deck (Third Polling Officer):

"On the elector returning from the voting compartment, he will check the mark of indelible ink on the elector's left index finger."

🔴 This is back to front — the check is a gate before entry

Margdarsika [MG Ch.2(3)], PO-3's duty 2:

"Permission to go into the voting compartment only on the voter slip issued by PO-2; and he shall also see that the indelible ink mark is clear."

🚨 Looking at the finger after the vote has been recorded achieves nothing — a control only works at the gate. A voter with no ink will already have voted, and nothing can be done: a vote cannot be taken back out of an EVM.

🔗 This is the same defect as Item 1-A (PP1_p066) seen from the other side — there the check is missing, here it is in the wrong place. Fix both together.

✅ Fix: "Before sending the elector into the voting compartment, he will check the PO-2 slip and see that the indelible ink mark on the left index finger is clear — and only then press Ballot."

---

Item 1-I — 🚨 PP2_p073 — "rule 35" for breach of secrecy — that rule does not apply to an EVM poll at all ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

As printed on the deck, point 1:

"…if any voter, even after the Presiding Officer's warning, refuses to follow the voting procedure, he shall not be permitted to vote under rule 35."

🔴 Wrong on two counts

1. Rule 35 does not apply to an EVM poll. Rule 55(5) lists the rules that apply where the poll is taken on an EVM — "25 to 29, 30A, 31A, 32A, 32B, 33, 34A, 35A, 36, 37A, 37B, 38A, 39, …" → the list contains 35A, not plain 35.

2. The right rule is 37-A, not 35-A. The division between them is explicit:

The slide's own heading is "Breach of the secrecy of voting by an elector."

✅ Fix: "rule 35" → "rule 37-A".

⚠️ Recorded honestly: the review said "37-A(7)". I have verified rule 37-A; I have not verified the sub-rule "(7)". Have the deck read "rule 37-A" only; add a sub-rule number only after checking it against the rule book.

✅ The other five points on the slide are correct — taking back the slip, a note in the remarks column of Form 14-A signed by the PRO, not altering the serial numbers of later electors, and the entry in Form 14-C. Only the rule number needs to change.

---

Item 1-J — 🕛 PP2_p058, PP2_p109, FORMS_p035 — Annexure-10 cites the repealed Act of 1959 🕛 (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

The same Annexure-10 (elector's age declaration) is printed on all three pages:

"…I am aware of the penal provisions of section 15 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 regarding a false declaration."

The Rajasthan Municipalities Act 1959 (Act 38 of 1959) stands repealed by section 344(1). The Act in force is that of 2009 (Act 18 of 2009).

✅ The saving grace — the section number is the same

Section 15 of the 2009 Act is also "making a false declaration" — and the Margdarsika itself extracts section 15 of the 2009 Act in its own Annexure-2.

➡ So only the year "1959" → "2009" is wrong. Section 15 is right. And this is a contradiction inside one and the same book — 2009 in Annexure-2, 1959 in Annexure-10.

🚨 A caution here — do not alter the form yourself

Annexure-10 is a prescribed form of the Commission's Margdarsika (printed p. 116). The deck is reproducing it faithfully — this is not the deck's own mistake.

✅ Do this	❌ Not this
Say it orally in training — the Act in force is 2009	crossing out or amending the form at the polling station
Write to the Commission for a correction	printing a form of your own

🚨 Altering a prescribed form yourself would be a larger error than the citation defect.

🔗 This belongs to the same class as Item 6 (repealed IPC) — an out-of-date citation that changes no decision.

---

Item 1-K — 🚨 FORMS_p031 — the filled specimen diary does not reconcile with itself ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

This is the filled specimen of the Presiding Officer's diary — trainees learn to fill their own diary by copying it. Reconciliation is the entire purpose of the diary.

🔴 Defect 1 — item 12 is out by exactly 200

🔴 Defect 2 — item 18 is out by the very same 200

🚨 Every voter is identified by one route or the other — EPIC or an alternative document. So 18(a) + 18(b) must come to exactly 957. As printed, 200 electors appear to have voted without being identified at all.

✅ Which figure is right — 957

Item 11.4 (votes recorded per the machine) = 957 and item 21 = 957. The machine's count is the anchor — so the components of items 12 and 18 are 200 short.

⚠️ I cannot say how the 200 should be split between male and female — this is a fictitious example. Only ensure that when a new specimen is prepared, the components add to exactly 957.

✅ Defect 3 — the four lines of item 11 — one reconciles, one does not

✏️ My own correction (22.08.2026): I earlier wrote here "item 4 is 3, so 960 − 3 = 957". That was incomplete. Reading FORMS_p009 itself, the split is —

✅ 960 → 957 reconciles correctly — and the form itself asks this (item 6):

960 − 02 − 01 = 957 ✅ — the form's item 6 answer "Yes" is correct.

⚠️ The 25 gap from 985 → 960 is unexplained. Being marked "allowed" in the marked copy and signing the register happen for the same voters. Even adding tendered votes (05) and those not permitted (03) gives 968, not 985.

⚠️ I am not asserting a correct figure here — only that these lines of the specimen do not reconcile. If a new specimen is prepared, any gap between 11.2 and 11.3 must be explainable by some item of the diary.

🚨 How to use this in training — turn the defect into the exercise

Rather than dropping the slide, ask the class: "Add up item 12 — is the total right?"

✅ That is the habit that will save the evening of 09/11.09.2026 — checking every total yourself before filling in the diary. A diary that does not add up will be caught at the RO's table.

---

Item 1-L — 🚨 FORMS_p009 — the wrong voter is counted at item 3 ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

Printed in red against item 3 of the specimen:

"Because a postal ballot had been issued, the name was written into the voters' register, but after it was written it came to the notice of the Presiding Officer, and so the voter was refused permission to vote."

🔴 The Margdarsika draws a clear line between items 3 and 4

➡ The distinction is: item 3 = the voter's own decision · item 4 = the Presiding Officer refused.

The specimen's own note says the voter "was refused" — so it does not fit the definition of item 3 at all.

⚠️ But I cannot say "item 4 is the right box" either

Item 4 is itself confined to rules 35-A / 37-A only. The postal-ballot bar falls under neither of those rules.

➡ So this situation does not sit cleanly in either column of the form. Put the question to the RO/DEO — and until an answer comes, do not use this example in the specimen at all; use a plain "No Vote" example instead (e.g. the voter signed and then left).

🚨 Important: the specimen's arithmetic is correct (960 − 02 − 01 = 957). The objection is to the classification, not to the sums.

---

Item 1-M — 🚨 FORMS_p023 ↔ FORMS_p009 — tendered ballot papers: 20 received, or 10? ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

Two forms for the same fictitious polling station (Paota, Ward 21, Station 122) contradict:

✅ FORMS_p009 is entirely consistent within itself

✅ Now resolved — 20 is the right figure (added 22.08.2026)

The Margdarsika [MG Ch.8(1)] itself says:

"🚨 Twenty (20) tendered ballot papers shall be given to the polling station; if they fall short, inform the zonal magistrate."

➡ So FORMS_p023's "20" is ✅ correct, and FORMS_p009's "received 10" is ❌ wrong. When a new specimen is prepared, item 8(a) should read 20, with a serial range covering 20 papers. (See Item 1-AE)

🚨 Why this matters: trainees learn reconciliation from precisely these two pages. A PRO who draws 20 papers and accounts for only 10 has 10 ballot papers unaccounted for — a serious irregularity. The specimen itself must not fail reconciliation.

✅ In training: show both pages side by side and ask — "The receipt says 20, the account says 10. What will you do?" Answer: count what you actually received, check it against the serial range, and have the receipt corrected to that figure.

---

Item 1-N — 🚨 FORMS_p010 — the paper-seal subtraction instruction is printed backwards ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

Printed at item 4 of the paper-seal account:

"Number of unused paper seals returned to the Returning Officer (subtract item 2 from item 3) — 5"

🔴 The instruction is reversed — the filled answer is right

From the paper-seal account on FORMS_p009 —

✅ Fix: change the bracket to "(subtract item 3 from item 2)". The filled figure 5 is correct — do not change it.

🚨 Why this matters: the paper-seal account is reconciled at the RO's table. A PRO who follows the instruction literally will write a negative number, or freeze.

---

Item 1-O — 🚨 FORMS_p016 ↔ FORMS_p017 — one postal ballot, two different serial numbers ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

Both relate to the same elector (Sumit Kumar, Paota, Ward 21) and the same postal ballot.

🔴 "122" is in fact the polling station / part number

In this same specimen set 122 appears three times as the station or part number —

• FORMS_p009: "No. and name of polling station … 122 / Govt Sr. Sec. School, Paota … part number 122"
• FORMS_p010: "Polling station number 122"
• FORMS_p036: "No. and name of polling station … 122 Govt Higher Secondary School, Paota"

➡ So Form 16-A has the polling-station number written into the ballot serial-number blank. The correct figure is 12332, as Form 16-B shows.

🚨 The postal ballot's serial number is the very thread that ties the ballot to the elector. If two forms carry two different numbers, that ballot becomes challengeable at the count.

---

Item 1-P — 🚨 FORMS_p036 ↔ FORMS_p031 — the age-declaration figures disagree in both parts ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

The names in Annexure-11 (FORMS_p036) can simply be counted:

But item 17 of the diary (FORMS_p031) says:

🔴 Both parts disagree — the review had caught only Part II. Annexure-11 is the very list from which item 17 of the diary is filled — the count of names and the diary figure must be the same number.

✅ Fix: either add one more name to each part of Annexure-11, or change item 17 of the diary from 05 → 04. The two must carry the same figure.

⚠️ The review also said this should match item 4 of Form 14-C (= 01). I am not saying that. Item 4 is confined to rules 35-A / 37-A, and I have not verified whether a refusal to make an age declaration falls under either — so I make no claim about that third comparison.

---

Item 1-Q — 🚨🚨 PP2_p026 — "equal votes" is not a requirement, and "including NOTA" is missing ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

When it bites: the morning of 09 and 11.09.2026, during the mock poll.

As printed on the deck (I read the page image myself):

"Now the mock poll will be conducted by pressing the Ballot button; in it each candidate will be given an equal number of votes, but the minimum number of votes given should be 01."

🔴 Two defects

✅ The correct rule — from the Margdarsika

"A mock poll with a minimum of 1 vote each for every candidate including NOTA is mandatory." [MG Ch.4 p.20; Ch.4-A p.32]

The ECIL manual 2019 [MPSV Ch.5] itself states that the votes need not be equal. The Margdarsika 2026 added the mandatory minimum of 1 vote each to that.

🚨 The bigger danger is NOTA being left out. If NOTA receives no mock vote, its panel has not been tested at all — and a fault in it will not be caught during the poll.

✅ Fix — have this sentence used instead: "The mock poll will now be conducted by pressing the Ballot button. A minimum of 1 vote each must be given to every candidate including NOTA. The votes need not be equal."

⚠️ A presentational suggestion (not a defect): the photograph on this slide is of a BEL control unit with a Print button and an Election Commission of India pink paper seal. Balotra will receive MPSV/MPMV — tell the party that the machine in the picture is not the machine they will get, or they will hunt for buttons that are not there.

---

Item 1-R — 🚨 PP1_p014 and PP2_p030 — the clock-error panchnama is a Panchayat form ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

The fields as printed (I read the page image myself):

The certifying sentence carries the same defect:

"Certified that in the constituency of the aforesaid Panchayat Samiti / Zila Parishad member, the clock of the Control Unit used at the polling station showed…"

🔴 Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad are Panchayati Raj institutions. They have no existence whatever in a municipal election.

✅ The correct fields

Certifying sentence: "…at the polling station in the aforesaid ward of the municipality…"

✅ The rest of the form is sound — the three times (mock poll · start of poll · close of poll), actual time against the time shown on the CU, the PRO's signature and the agents' table. Only two fields and one sentence need changing.

🔗 Remember what to do on a clock error as well: before the poll → have the CU changed · during the poll → carry on [MPSV Ch.7] · 🚨 on MPMV (the Madhya Pradesh machine) do NOT have it changed [PP1_p010].

---

Item 1-S — 🚨 PP2_p009 — "separate CU and BU for different posts" ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

As printed on the deck:

"It is clarified here that in an election with machines of these models, separate CUs and BUs will be used for different posts."

🔴 A municipal polling station has only one post

Order 2184, paragraph (2) (I read the page myself):

"It is noteworthy that for conducting the election of a single post (member), MPSV and MPMV machines too, like other EVMs, will be used exactly like Single Post Single Vote machines."

Order 2184, paragraph 9(xxi) repeats it:

"Since only the member's seat is contested on MPSV and MPMV machines…"

🚨 The practical danger: on reading this the polling party will expect two sets of machines, or, on receiving one set, assume something is missing — needless confusion first thing in the morning.

✅ Fix: "In a municipal election only the member (councillor) post is voted on at the polling station, so a single set of CU and BU will be used."

---

Item 1-T — 🚨 PP2_p062 — "register 1-A" and "Assembly constituency" ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

As printed on the deck (last bullet):

"For officers voting by EDC, the Second Polling Officer will write their serial number, part number and the name of the Assembly constituency in the second column of register 1-A."

🔴 Two defects

🔴 A municipal election has no such thing as an "Assembly constituency". The constituency is the ward — "in municipal elections each ward is a constituency" [order 2184 ¶9(iii)].

🔗 This is the same family of defect as PP2_p061, where EDC is tied to "the same Lok Sabha". Both are language carried over from Election Commission of India general-election material. Search the whole deck for "Lok Sabha / Vidhan Sabha / Assembly" and have them removed.

---

Item 1-U — 🚨 RO_p077 — a ground of rejection resting on "age group under section 24" ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

When it bites: on scrutiny day — this is a rejection slide, and the RO acts on it directly.

As printed on the deck (third box):

"If the ward or municipality post is marked for a special qualification category (age group as per section 24) … and the candidate is not of that special qualification category / age group."

🔴 Section 24 is not about this at all

🔴 My own correction — 22.08.2026 (later the same day)

I earlier wrote here: "There is no reservation category called 'age group' in municipal elections" and "I am not supplying the correct section."

🔴 That was wrong. Such a category does exist — and I have now read it in the Act.

✅ The correct section — section 21A, not section 24

Source: ULB Manual 2026, PDF p.66 (I read the original text myself):

"21A. Special qualification for election on certain seats.— Notwithstanding anything to the contrary … a person shall not be eligible for election on such seats in a Municipality, as may be determined by the State Government in the prescribed manner, unless he or she is within the age group of twenty one years to thirty five years and is otherwise eligible … Provided that— (i) not more than two seats each from the seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes or women in a Municipality shall be determined under this section;"

And clause (1), column 3 of Form 2 (rule 11) itself says:

"Whether general, reserved for S.C., S.T., Backward Classes [Women or person having special qualification specified under section 21A]"

🔴 The corrected finding

✅ The fix is simple: on RO_p077 change "age group as per section 24" to "special qualification under section 21A (age 21–35 years)". The rest of the slide is correct — it is not to be deleted.

🚨 For Balotra's RO: if any seat in your body is marked under section 21A, a candidate over 35 is ineligible for that seat — this bites directly at scrutiny. Ask the DEO whether any seat has been determined under 21A.

🔗 Teach alongside it: on a reserved post the caste certificate must accompany the nomination itself (order 5164) — see BALOTRA_DISTRICT §4.

---

Item 1-V — 🚨🚨 PP1_p049 (and p053) — the third-gender star is missing, and the tick is in the wrong place ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

This is not a "minor" error — item 12 of the diary rests entirely on it.

As printed on the deck (under "Marking"):

"After identity is established, underline the name. Make a (✓) in red ink against the serial number, ahead of the woman voter."

🔴 Two defects

The Margdarsika's own text:

"Immediately after identification, draw a line under the name; a tick (√) to the left of the name of a woman voter; a star (*) to the left of the name of a third-gender voter — so that the count of male / female / third-gender voters can be made at the end."

🚨 That very count is needed in the diary at the end of the day

Presiding Officer's diary, item 12: "Number of those who voted — male / female / third gender / total"

🔴 If the third-gender star is never marked all day, item 12 cannot be filled in the evening — there is no basis left from which to count. And a tick placed on the serial number instead runs together with the underline and the other marks.

✅ Fix — have this used instead: "On identity being established, underline the name. Put a tick (✓) to the left of a woman's name. 🚨 Put a star ( * ) to the left of a third-gender voter's name. These three counts go into item 12 of the diary."

✅ PP1_p055 is correct — leave it alone. Correct only p049 and p053.

---

Item 1-W — Four more from §3 (minor tier) that stood up to checking (22.08.2026)

All four I confirmed from the same pages I had already read for the items above.

✅ (a) PP2_p020 — the one worked example has no NOTA panel

As printed: "(if there are 9 candidates and 54 votes are cast in the mock poll and all candidates have been given 6 each)"

9 × 6 = 54 — the arithmetic is right, but NOTA is nowhere in it.

🔴 With NOTA there would be 10 panels and the total would be 60. This is Item 1-Q spreading — NOTA is left out right across the deck. ✅ Change the example to: "9 candidates + NOTA = 10 panels, 6 each → 60 votes in all."

✅ (b) PP2_p035 — where Annexure-19 is filed: three answers in one deck

➡ See Item 1-E for the full basis. Correct both pages together.

✅ (c) PP2_p106 / p096 — the same reversed subtraction

"(subtract item 2 from item 3)" — the same defect as on FORMS_p010. ✅ Correct: "subtract item 3 from item 2" — see Item 1-N. It is repeated across three pages — correct all three.

✅ (d) FORMS_p031 item 13 — ₹06 forfeited matches nothing

As printed: allowed 05 · rejected 02 · amount forfeited 06

The challenge fee is ₹2 per challenge (cash; Annexure-13 receipt book) — verified in our material.

🔴 ₹6 arises from no combination at all — it corresponds to 3 challenges, a figure that appears nowhere in item 13.

⚠️ I am not stating in which case the fee is forfeited (challenge upheld, or challenge rejected) — I have not verified that. I say only that ₹6 does not follow from this specimen's own figures.

---

Item 1-X — 🚨🚨 PP1_p012 — the CLOCK ERROR table has no MPSV row — and MPSV is Balotra's machine ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

When it bites: at despatch, as the machine is being handed to the party.

The deck's table ("Change of machine at the time of despatch") has four rows:

🔴 Rows 3 and 4 cover only M3A and MPMV — MPSV has been left out

🚨 Balotra will receive MPSV or MPMV (press note 6722 — see BALOTRA_DISTRICT §2). If a Balotra party is given an MPSV and a CLOCK ERROR appears, this table tells them nothing.

✅ The correct answer for MPSV — from two sources

1. PP1_p010 in this very deck (the descriptive slide) gives the general rule:

"If CLOCK ERROR is displayed on the display panel, have the CU changed. If it is the EVM owned by Madhya Pradesh (MPMV), it is not to be changed."

2. [MPSV Ch.7] error table: CLOCK ERROR — before the poll → change the CU · during the poll → carry on (no effect on functioning or on the voting data).

✅ What the full table should read

🔗 An important link — read with Item 1-R: Row 4 requires a panchnama on MPMV — and that very panchnama form (PP1_p014) is a Panchayat Samiti / Zila Parishad form — see Item 1-R.

🔴 So if Balotra receives MPMV, both defects collide: a panchnama must be drawn, and the form supplied is for the wrong tier of body. Fix the two together.

---

Item 1-Y — ⛔ RO_p071 — CrPC 110/117 and "Food Adulteration 1954" — both review claims REJECTED ⛔ (22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

🔴 Do not change this slide. It reproduces the Act word for word.

The review alleged: "CrPC 1973 is repealed; it is now BNSS 2023" and "the Food Adulteration Act 1954 was replaced by the FSSA 2006."

✅ I read section 24 of the Act itself — the deck is exactly right

Source: ULB Manual 2026, PDF p.67 — the Act's section 24, verbatim:

"24. General disqualifications for members.— A person, notwithstanding that he is otherwise qualified, shall be disqualified, for being chosen as or for being a member of a Municipality— (iv) if he has been convicted of an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Central Act No. 37 of 1954), or (v) against whom an order has been passed under section 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act No. 2 of 1974), in proceedings instituted under section 110 of the said Code, such order not having been subsequently reversed, or (vii) if, he having been a professional practitioner, has been debarred from practicing as such by order of any competent authority…"

➡ All three bullets match the Act word for word. There is no error.

🚨 One true point does remain — but it is the Act's, not the deck's

So section 24 still cites repealed central enactments. Under section 8 of the General Clauses Act, a reference to a repealed enactment is read as a reference to the corresponding re-enacted provision — so the disqualification has not lapsed.

✅ What to tell the RO

✅ Say this	❌ Do not do this
"These disqualifications come from section 24 of the Act and are live."	change the section numbers on the slide
"Before rejecting on these grounds, take written legal advice from the DEO."	decide it yourself at the scrutiny table

🚨 Why: these are rare grounds and they turn on the survival of repealed central law — not a decision to be taken at RO level.

🔗 This is different from Item 1-U (RO_p077). There, section 24 was misapplied (to reservation / age group); here it is applied correctly. Do not confuse the two.

⚠️ Two further points that fell out of the same text

1. RO_p101's "1955" — the correct year is 1954. Section 24(iv) says "1954 (Central Act 37 of 1954)", and Explanation (d) to section 8 of the RPA 1951 also says 1954 (Manual PDF p.34). ➡ If RO_p101 prints "1955", the year is wrong — 1955 is the Essential Commodities Act. (I did not re-open the RO_p101 page image in this pass — look at it once before changing anything.)

2. The review's claim about section 24(i) — ⚠️ I could not settle it. Clause (i) reads: "convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude … and sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more" — the clause itself carries no time limit. But section 24's proviso continues beyond what I read, and I have not read it in full. ➡ Until then, make no change to RO_p067.

---

Item 1-Z — 🚨🚨 RO_p067 — the six-year limit on section 24(i) is not given alongside it ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified against the Act itself)

When it bites: on scrutiny day — an eligible candidate can be wrongly rejected.

✅ The Act's own text — proviso (a) to section 24

Source: ULB Manual 2026, PDF p.68 (I read the original text myself):

"Provided that— (a) the disqualification mentioned in clause (i) shall cease to operate after the expiry of six years from the date of the release of the disqualified person from imprisonment;"

And clause (i) itself:

"if he has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude or of any other offence by a competent court of law and sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more"

🔴 Decided without reading the two together, the decision will be wrong

🔴 If RO_p067 is taught on its own — where the disqualification is stated in absolute terms — the RO will reject an eligible candidate's nomination. That is the kind of mistake that ends in an election petition.

✅ Fix: add this line on RO_p067 right beside clause (i) — "🚨 This disqualification ceases six years after the date of release — proviso (a) to section 24." Or put an explicit pointer to RO_p070 on the same slide. Never teach the two slides apart.

📌 Three further clauses of the proviso — all of them arise at scrutiny

🔗 Proviso (b) completes Item 1-Y. There I said to take legal advice on the CrPC ground — add to that: the disqualification lapses of itself once the security period expires.

⚠️ Proviso (e) — the children provision — stands DELETED (Act 7 of 2026). The Manual still prints it — see BALOTRA_DISTRICT §4-क and Item 9.

---

Item 1-AA — 🚨 RO_p099 / RO_p100 / RO_p101 — the structure of RPA section 8 is shown wrongly ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified against the Act itself)

✅ I read the text of section 8 of the RPA 1951

Source: ULB Manual 2026, PDF pp. 32–34 — "EXTRACTS FROM THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951"

The clauses of 8(1), as they stand: (a) IPC ss. 153A, 171E, 171F, 376…, 498A, 505 · (b) Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 · (c) Customs Act 1962 s.11 · (d) UAPA 1967 ss.10–12 · (e) FERA 1973 · (f) NDPS 1985 · (g) TADA 1987 · (h) Religious Institutions Act 1988 · … · (l) Sati (Prevention) 1987 · (m) Prevention of Corruption

The clauses of 8(2): (a) hoarding or profiteering · (b) any law relating to the adulteration of food or drugs · (c) Dowry Prohibition Act 1961

🔴 Defect 1 — RO_p099/p100's "section 8(1)(ii)(a)…(dh)" names no real provision

The offences sit in clauses (a)–(m) of 8(1), and (i)/(ii) are the sentencing limbs. Fusing the two into "8(1)(ii)(a)" invents a provision that does not exist.

✅ Fix: write the rows as "clause (a)…(m) of section 8(1)", and put the sentencing limbs (i)/(ii) on a separate line.

🔴 Defect 2 — RO_p101's "Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1955" — wrong year

The Explanation to section 8 (Manual PDF p.34), on two consecutive lines:

"(c) 'essential commodity' has the meaning assigned to it in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955); (d) 'food' has the meaning assigned to it in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954)."

🔴 Both sit in the same Explanation, one line apart — which is plainly where the year slipped.

✅ Fix: on RO_p101, "1955" → "1954". Section 24(iv) of the Act also says 1954 (Central Act 37 of 1954) — 1954 in both places.

⚠️ Note — this is not the same as RO_p071. RO_p071 prints "1954" and is correct — see Item 1-Y, where the review's claim was rejected. Only RO_p101 has the wrong year.

⚠️ I did not open the RO_p101 page image in this pass — this finding rests on the review's description of it. But the correct year is 1954, and that I have confirmed from the Act itself. Look at the page once before changing anything.

🔗 This connects to Item 5 (the struck-down section 8(4)) — the same RO_p101 page. Make both corrections together.

---

Item 1-AB — 🚨🚨 PP1_p025 — the list of identity documents is right, but all three conditions are missing ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

When it bites: on poll day, at the First Polling Officer's table, for every single voter.

✅ The list is correct — leave it alone

The 11 documents printed on PP1_p025 — Aadhaar, VB-G RAM G/MGNREGA, photo passbook, health insurance / Ayushman Bharat, driving licence, PAN, passport, photo pension document, service identity card, MP/MLA identity card, UDID — match order 5310 dated 30.07.2026. ✅

🔴 But the slide carries only the list — not one of the conditions

Order 5310 (which superseded the Margdarsika's Annexure-16 / order 603) attaches three conditions:

And a fourth point: EPIC is the primary document — these 11 are alternatives for those who cannot produce it. The order also says "the First Polling Officer must himself be satisfied."

✅ Fix: add this box below the list — "🚨 EPIC is primary. The alternatives above only if they are — (1) issued before the announcement of the election, (2) original, and (3) not past any expiry printed on them."

🔗 Source: order F.1(2)(1)NPA-PANCHA/S.O./RANIA/14/5310 dated 30.07.2026 — the full text is at EVM/hi §1.

---

Item 1-AC — 🚨 PP2_p051 — the challenge is narrowed to "polling agent" alone ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

As printed on the deck:

2. "At that same moment any polling agent may challenge the voter's identity." 4. "The Presiding Officer shall not accept a challenge made by a polling agent until…"

🔴 Three people may challenge, not one

Margdarsika [MG Ch.2(1)], PO-1's duty 7:

"A polling agent / the candidate / the election agent may challenge the identity at this stage, not afterwards."

🚨 The practical danger: if the candidate himself is at the station and raises a challenge, on the strength of this slide the Presiding Officer will turn him away — which is wrong.

✅ Fix: in points 2 and 4 — "any polling agent, the candidate himself, or the election agent may challenge."

✅ The other points are correct — the ₹2 cash requirement ✅ and the Annexure-13 receipt ✅ both match our material. Only the list of who may challenge needs widening.

---

Item 1-AD — 🚨 PP2_p078 — closing the poll is described only in ECI-machine terms ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

As printed on the deck:

"…remove the black rubber seal fitted on the Control Unit and press the black Close button through the hole with the help of a finger."

🔴 An MPSV has nothing of the kind

🔴 Both photographs on the slide are of ECI machines too — they are labelled "Control Unit" and carry the Election Commission of India pink paper seal.

🚨 A Balotra Presiding Officer, at 6 p.m. with agents watching, will be looking for a "black rubber seal" that does not exist on his machine.

✅ Fix: either add a row for both machines on the slide, or say it aloud in Balotra's training — "On your machine there is no rubber seal but a cap. Remove the cap, press CLOSE, 🚨 put the cap back — leaving the cap open is a grave lapse."

⚠️ I read only PP2_p078. The review says p079–p082 are in the same idiom — that I have not verified. Look at all four pages once.

---

Item 1-AE — 🚨 PP2_p070 — the tendered-vote procedure is incomplete ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

When it bites: tendered votes are rare — so when one arises, the party is working from this slide alone.

✅ First, what the review got wrong — the endorsement IS there

The review said "the 'tendered ballot paper' stamp on the back … none of it is present." 🔴 That is not correct. Point 3 of the slide reads —

"On the back of such a ballot paper the Presiding Officer will write 'tendered ballot paper' by hand."

⚠️ But it is still incomplete — the Margdarsika [MG Ch.8(1)] says:

"stamp 'tendered ballot paper' on its back, and if no stamp is available, write it by hand and sign below it."

➡ The stamp is primary and hand-writing the fallback — and it requires a signature.

🔴 What is genuinely missing — five things

✅ The full sequence — teach this

a false vote already cast  →  satisfied as to identity  →  🚨 indelible ink
   →  🚨 entry in Form 14-B + signature/thumb  →  only then issue the ballot
   →  stamp 'tendered ballot paper' on the back (or by hand + signature)
   →  distinguishing mark / arrow-cross seal  →  envelope E-5 (sealed)
   →  account in Form 14-C Part 1, item 8

🚨 The most dangerous omission is the ordering. If the ballot is handed over first and Form 14-B filled afterwards, the voter may refuse to sign — and the ballot paper is then unaccounted for. That is exactly why the Margdarsika says "only after this".

🔗 This settles Item 1-M. There the receipt said 20 and the account said 10. The figure 20 is confirmed by the Margdarsika — so FORMS_p023's 20 is right, and FORMS_p009's "received 10" is the specimen's error. Item 1-M is resolved by this.

⚠️ I read only PP2_p070. The remaining steps may be on p071 — look at the next page before changing anything.

---

Item 1-AF — 🚨 PP2_p011 — "RESULT and PRINT buttons" — Balotra's machine has no PRINT button ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

As printed on the deck (point 4):

"Thereafter the door of the inner compartment of the Result Section (above the RESULT and PRINT buttons) should be opened by inserting the thumb and one finger through two holes…"

🔴 The inner-compartment buttons differ between the two machines

Source: EVM/hi — identifying the machine — "Difference in M3A/MK-5: the inner compartment has RESULT and PRINT buttons (not RESULT-I / RESULT-II)."

🚨 A Balotra Presiding Officer will open that door and see RESULT-I and RESULT-II — there will be no button called "PRINT".

✅ Fix: "…the door of the inner compartment (above RESULT-I/RESULT-II on MPSV/MPMV; above RESULT/PRINT on M3A/MK-V)…"

📌 Worth knowing: on MPSV a printout is taken by connecting an EVM decoder printer to the DI connector and using RESULT-II — that is RO-level work, not the polling party's.

---

Item 1-AG — 🚨 PP1_p073 — Annexure-19 is absent from the Presiding Officer's list of forms ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

The tail of the list (I read the page image myself):

🔴 The whole 1–24 list ends at Annexure-15A — Annexure-19 is simply not in it.

🚨 Yet the Presiding Officer must prepare Annexure-19 on the morning of the poll

PP2_p021 in this same deck says:

"The Presiding Officer will prepare the mock-poll certificate in the form given at Annexure 19."

And item 30 of the diary requires it to go into envelope E-10.

➡ So a form the PRO is obliged to prepare is missing from the very list of "the PRO's forms". It can be overlooked while checking the polling material.

✅ Fix: add "25 — Annexure-19 — mock-poll certificate" to the list.

🔗 This ties to Items 1-E and 1-W(b), where what Annexure-19 is attached to was wrong. Correct all three together.

---

Item 1-AH — ⚠️ PP1_p039 — the review's "fourth tier" claim — I could not verify it ⚠️

The slide shows three tiers: national parties · state parties · independents

The review alleged: "the registered-unrecognised party tier is missing — there should be four."

🔴 My municipal material contains nothing at all on polling-agent seating priority. The four-tier order is Election Commission of India general-election practice.

⚠️ In municipal elections registered-unrecognised parties receive free symbols just as independents do — so three tiers may well be correct here.

➡ I neither confirm nor reject this. — Make no change to the slide unless four tiers are established from the rule book or a Commission order.

---

Item 1-AI — 🚨 PP1_p036 — "besides the electors" is missing, "only" is not ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

As printed on the deck (heading: "Entry into polling stations — rule 29"):

"Only the polling officers, each candidate, his election agent and one polling agent at a time may enter the polling station."

🔴 Defect 1 — read literally, the voters themselves are shut out

The Margdarsika [MG Ch.3(6)] opens with this line:

🚨 "Besides the electors, only the following persons:"

🔴 Dropping three words reverses the sense of the sentence. It is plainly a drafting slip — but it is what will be memorised for the question paper.

🔴 Defect 2 — the third bullet has lost its limitation of purpose

🚨 Without the limitation it reads as though the PRO may call anyone inside. The power is in fact confined to the purpose of identifying voters.

✅ Fix — have the first line read: "Besides the electors, only the following persons may enter the polling station —…" and add "for the identification of voters" to the third bullet.

🔗 Teach these two clarifications alongside [MG Ch.3(6)]: 🚨 "'public servant' does not include an ordinary police officer" · 🚨 "'public servant on duty in connection with the election' does not include Ministers, Ministers of State or Deputy Ministers" — neither clarification appears anywhere in the deck, and these are exactly what get tested on poll day.

---

Item 1-AJ — 🚨 FORMS_p002 (the index) — Annexure-19 is missing here too — and this index proves Item 1-E ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

🎯 The most useful part — the deck contradicts itself

Printed in this deck's own index (I read the page image myself):

🔴 And PP2_p021 in the same deck says: "the Presiding Officer's diary (Annexure-8)"

🎯 This is independent proof of the third defect in Item 1-E. The Margdarsika is no longer even needed to establish it — the deck's own index refutes PP2_p021.

✅ Show the two pages side by side in training — the class will spot it themselves.

🔴 Annexure-19 is not in the index either

The index runs to 27 entries and ends at entry 27 = Annexure-15A.

🔗 This matches Item 1-AG (PP1_p073), where Annexure-19 was also absent from the list.

🚨 So Annexure-19 appears neither in the PRO's list of forms nor in the index — yet it is the form to be filled on the morning of the poll, immediately after the mock poll.

✅ Fix: add "28 — Annexure-19 — mock-poll certificate" to the index, and put its page into the deck.

✅ One good thing about the index — the rule references are right

Form 9 (rule 26(3)) · Form 12 (28(2)/38A(2)) · Form 13 (rule 43) · Form 14-A (rule 35-A) · Form 14-B (rule 44-A) · Form 14-C (rules 49-C, 63-A(2)) — all of these match our material. ✅ Do not change the index's rule references.

---

Item 1-AK — 🚨 RO_p035 — there is no "third paragraph" in the RO's part of Form 3 ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

As printed on the deck (third bullet):

"If any person is present with the candidate … to identify him, mention of that shall also be made in the third paragraph of the part of the nomination paper to be filled in by the Returning Officer."

🔴 Neither RO-filled part of Form 3 has a third paragraph

I read the Form 3 printed on RO_p020 myself:

🔴 Neither has a third paragraph — and there is no field for an identifier anywhere in them. So the deck's instruction cannot be complied with as written.

⚠️ I am not saying where the identifier should be recorded

I did not read the earlier parts of Form 3 (I–IV) in this pass.

✅ The safe fix — drop "third paragraph": "…mention of that shall be made in the part to be filled in by the Returning Officer." and ask the DEO exactly where that entry belongs.

✅ The other bullets on the slide are correct — Part-VI paragraph (1) gives the serial number ✅, paragraph (2) records the time, date and whether candidate or proposer ✅, and that part is handed to the person presenting it — so the receipt bullet is right too ✅

---

Item 1-AL — 🚨 RO_p003 — Form 2 has no counting field at all ❌ (new — 22.08.2026, verified first-hand)

The deck says the notice of election (Form 2) will specify five things: nomination · scrutiny · withdrawal · poll · 🔴 place, date and time of counting

🔴 But the printed Form 2 (rule 11) ends at the poll

I read the FORM 2 printed on RO_p006 myself — clauses (1) to (6):

Then only — Place · Date · Returning Officer.

🔴 There is no counting clause in Form 2 at all. The notice the RO issues will simply have nowhere to record it.

✅ Fix: delete the fifth bullet on RO_p003, or reword it — "The place/date of counting does not appear in Form 2 — it comes from the Commission's programme and a separate notice."

🔗 For Balotra: counting is on 14.09.2026 — that date comes from press note 6722, not from Form 2. (See BALOTRA_DISTRICT §5)

✅ And this same form answered the open question in Item 1-U

Column 3 of clause (1) of Form 2 reads:

"… [Women or person having special qualification specified under section 21A]"

➡ That is the section I could not supply in Item 1-U — it has now been corrected there.

---

Item 2-B — 🚨 RO_p078 — a chairperson's proposer must be an ELECTED MEMBER, not merely a voter ❌ (new — 22.08.2026)

When it bites: 16–17.09.2026 (chairperson nomination and scrutiny).

Printed on the slide (third bullet), under "Grounds for rejecting a nomination paper":

"In the case of the Chairperson, if the proposer is not registered on the electoral roll of the municipality concerned."

✅ The correct test — rule 78(6)(iv):

"a candidate shall not be deemed to be duly nominated … unless the nomination paper is subscribed by an elected member as a proposer" — Manual printed p.112 and rule 78(1): "The office of the Chairperson … shall be filled by a person chosen by elected members of the Municipality" — printed p.111

🎯 The nature of the defect — not a falsehood, an incomplete test

✅ The fix — replace the third bullet:

"In the case of the Chairperson, if the proposer is not an elected member (a councillor elected from a ward) of the municipality concerned." [rule 78(6)(iv)]

🚨 The word "निर्वाचित" (elected) appears on none of the RO deck's 109 pages — the requirement is stated nowhere in it.

✔ The other two bullets on this slide are correct — do not touch them

• "if the candidate's name is not registered on the electoral roll of the municipality concerned" ✔
• "in the case of a councillor, if the proposer is not a voter of the ward concerned" ✔ [rule 13(1)(v)]

⚠️ The vice-chairperson post is different: there the proposer must be a member of the Municipality [rule 81(2) read with rule 82(2)(a)] — the "elected member" requirement belongs to the chairperson post.

---

Item 2 — RO_p013 — deposit shown as ₹2,000 for every type of body ❌

🚨 The agent review never caught this one. I found it by opening rule 22 myself.

The problem: RO_p013 takes the Municipal Board figure from rule 22(1)(a) and presents it as applying to all bodies.

✅ Correct position — rule 22, member post:

If taught as printed: a Council or Corporation candidate deposits too little → 🚨 his nomination is rejected at scrutiny — and the fault will lie with the training, not the candidate.

✅ RO_p014 is correct — leave it alone. See Part C, Item 11.

⚠️ Chairperson deposits are entirely different figures — Mayor ₹30,000/₹15,000 · President ₹20,000/₹10,000 · Chairman ₹10,000/₹5,000 [rule 78(6)(i)–(iii)]. Never put the two tables on one slide.

---

Item 2-A — 🚨 RO_p010 — "the candidate must present it personally" ❌ (new — 21.08.2026)

When it bites: 27.08 – 31.08.2026, at the nomination receipt counter. More serious than Item 3.1 — this is a refusal to receive, not a rejection.

Printed on the slide (I read the page image myself), second bullet:

"Under rule 12, every candidate must present his nomination paper (Form 3), duly completed and signed or thumb-marked together with the self-declaration, to the Returning Officer personally."

✅ Correct text — rule 12(6) (Manual PDF p.97 = printed p.88):

"…must be delivered to the returning officer in person by the candidate ¹[or any of the proposers between 10.30 AM to 3.00 PM]…"

🎯 Exactly what is wrong — and what is right

🚨 Do not over-correct. Do not teach "anyone may hand it in, any way". The correct statement is: "the candidate himself or any of his proposers, in person, between 10.30 AM and 3.00 PM."

Corroborated by the deck's own material: pages 19–20 of this same deck print Part IV of Form 3, which the RO fills in — "This nomination was delivered to me … by the candidate/proposer." The deck's own form assumes a proposer may deliver it; the deck's slide forbids it.

If taught as printed: the RO turns the proposer away at the counter. 🚨 A refusal to receive produces no rejection order — so there is nothing to challenge. The candidate's only remedy is an election petition after the result. The window shuts on 31.08.2026.

📌 Read with Item 3.1, where the same defect appears as a ground of rejection (RO_p076). Get both slides corrected together.

---

Item 3 — RO_p076 — one unlawful ground of rejection ❌

(this is a scrutiny slide — the RO acts on it directly)

The slide is headed "a nomination paper shall be rejected for the following reasons" and lists five grounds. One of them is unlawful — §3.1.

🔴 Corrected 21.08.2026: this heading previously read "two unlawful grounds". The §3.2 claim has been withdrawn — that ground turned out to be valid. Only §3.1 is unlawful.

3.1 ❌ "the candidate did not come in person and hand you his nomination paper"

Rule 12(6): "Every nomination paper … must be delivered to the returning officer in person by the candidate or any of the proposers between 10.30 AM to 3.00 PM of the days fixed…"

➡ Any one of the proposers may deliver it. The candidate appearing personally is not mandatory. (A non-party candidate has five proposers — proviso to rule 12(2) — any one of them will do.) 🚨 Rejecting a nomination on this ground would be unlawful.

3.2 ✅ ~~"Annexure-I was not submitted with the nomination paper"~~ — this ground is VALID

🔴 CLAIM WITHDRAWN — 21.08.2026

The first version of this sheet (issued the same day) called this an "unlawful ground" and said order 808 requires a memo first. That was wrong.

I opened the page image of order 808 myself — _r/CP/CP_p176.png, Compendium printed page 163. The order has two distinct sub-clauses and I had merged them —

Sub-clause	Original text	Meaning
(ii)	"Non-submission of the affidavit by any candidate shall be treated as a violation of this order, and such a candidate's nomination paper shall be liable to be rejected by the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny."	🚨 No affidavit at all → direct ground of rejection. No memo.
(iii)	"No column in the affidavit shall be left blank… where columns of the affidavit are found blank, the Returning Officer shall issue a memo (reminder); if the candidate still does not cure the defect, then per Resurgence India…"	The memo is only for blank columns

Sub-clause (i) makes clear that Annexure-I is that affidavit (on ₹50 non-judicial stamp paper).

✅ Correct position — two different situations, two different actions

➡ So this ground on RO_p076 matches the Commission's own order. Do not change it.

⚠️ One thing remains unverified: the earlier version cited Order 4831 dated 15.07.2026 for "an Annexure-III memo where a declaration is missing". I have not opened that order myself. If it concerns a different declaration it will have its own rule — but do not apply it to the Annexure-I affidavit. Confirm with the DEO if needed.

✔ The slide's other three grounds are correct — keep them

• "the candidate suffers a disqualification listed in section 24" ⚠️ but note — section 24(xvii) (more than two children) has now been deleted (Act 7/2026).
• "the candidate is not the person whose name and electoral roll serial number are entered in the nomination paper"
• "the candidate is not an elector of that municipal area"

---

Item 4 — RO_p083 — "a withdrawal notice presented by another person is invalid" ❌

✅ Correct position — rule 16 gives three routes:

If taught as printed: a valid withdrawal is refused → the withdrawn candidate stays on the ballot / EVM → the vote splits, and the result becomes open to an election petition.

⚠️ The vice-chairperson post is different. Rule 84(1) requires the notice to be "delivered to the returning officer personally" — there is no proposer route there. Do not conflate the member post (rule 16) with the vice-chairperson post (rule 84).

✅ The rest of the slide is correct.

---

Item 5 — RO_p101 and RO_p064 — struck-down section 8(4) taught as live law ❌

The slide presents section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 as live — under which a sitting MP/MLA gets three months' grace on conviction and the disqualification stays suspended while an appeal is pending.

✅ Correct position: section 8(4) has been struck down by the Supreme Court — Lily Thomas v. Union of India, judgment 10.07.2013. Disqualification takes effect from the date of conviction itself.

If taught as printed: a convicted sitting representative would be treated as eligible, when he is in fact disqualified from the day of conviction.

⚖️ How this reaches a municipal election (verified against the original text, 21.08.2026)

This question will come up in class — "the RP Act governs Parliament and the Assembly; how does it touch a municipality?" The answer is s.24(x), not s.28.

➡ The law governing disqualification on conviction for Assembly elections is RPA s.8 — so it reaches a municipal candidate by way of s.24(x).

🚨 The words "for the time being in force" are decisive. s.24(x) imports the law as it stands today. s.8(4) does not stand today — it was struck down. So teaching s.8(4) is wrong twice over: it is dead law, and s.24(x) does not import it.

---

Item 6 — PP2_p108 and FORMS_p034 — repealed IPC 1860 🕐

The slide (the complaint format addressed to the SHO):

"You are requested to take the necessary action required under section 171-F of the Indian Penal Code, 1860."

✅ Correct position: - The IPC 1860 was repealed with effect from 01.07.2024 and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - The Margdarsika's own Annexure-1 cites BNS 2023 sections 172(d) and 174(f) - 🚨 The Commission's Order 5310 dated 30.07.2026 itself says "…action be taken against him under section 172 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita"

✅ Fix — and exactly which section, now verified (21.08.2026)

This previously said only "BNS 2023, sections 172 / 174" — true, but it did not say which does what. I checked the text of BNS Chapter IX (Of Offences Relating to Elections): the marginal headings are word-for-word those of IPC 171A–171I, in the same order:

➡ The slide cites IPC 171-F, whose direct successor is BNS 174 — BNS 174 carries the identical marginal heading: "Punishment for undue influence or personation at an election."

✅ What the complaint should say:

the offence of personation — section 172 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with section 174 (punishment).

💡 This explains the Margdarsika's odd "172(घ)" notation. Annexure-1 prints "section 172(घ) and 174(च)". Those are not sub-clauses (d) and (f) — they are a way of writing "BNS 172 = former IPC 171-D" and "BNS 174 = former IPC 171-F". In Devanagari घ = D and च = F, and that is exactly the mapping. (The mapping is verified; reading the Margdarsika's intent this way is my inference.)

⚠️ Order 5310 names only section 172 — which is sufficient, since 172 defines the offence. Adding 174 (the punishment) makes the complaint more complete.

⚠️ Recorded honestly: the same defect appears in the Commission's own Margdarsika at Annexure-9. The DLMT slide has carried forward the Commission's own error — the fault is not the DLMT's alone. Teach BNS, but also point out the printed format in Annexure-9 so trainees are not confused.

---

PART B — ❌ The age reckoning date — the real error, previously missed

Item 7 — RO_p059 and RO_p060 — the date on which age is reckoned ❌

🔴 EARLIER VERSION WITHDRAWN — 21.08.2026

The first version of this sheet said Item 7 was an "important orders" slide citing section 13(3) wrongly, and that "the substance is sound — only the statutory hook is wrong."

I checked myself — that slide cannot be found in the DLMT material.

What I did	Result
Opened RO deck pages 5 and 6 as images	p.5 = FORM 1 (See Rule 10) · p.6 = FORM 2 (See Rule 11) — these are forms, not "important orders" slides
Searched the text layer of all five DLMT PDFs for 10157, 13(3), 21(f)	🚨 not one hit anywhere

➡ The basis for the old Items 7 and 8 could not be verified. Do not act on them. SEC letter F.4(1)(1)नपा/रानिआ/2020/Part-3/10157 dated 22.11.2020 is nowhere in this archive either — treat it as unverified and do not quote it in class.

🚨 Meanwhile the real error was left unflagged

Printed on RO_p059 (I read the image myself):

"Age:– a voter who has attained 21 years of age on the last date of the nomination paper may contest the election as a municipal member."

RO_p060 repeats it:

"…if, per his school certificate, his age on the date of filing the nomination is 20 years 10 months, he shall not be considered qualified."

✅ What the law says — rule 13(1), Manual printed p.88 (PDF p.97), read by me on the page image:

"On the date and time fixed for scrutiny of nomination papers under rule 10, the Returning Officer shall examine the nomination papers … and declare invalid any nomination on any of the following grounds:- … (iii) that the candidate has not attained the minimum age required for being elected as a member;"

➡ The test is applied on the scrutiny date — and the question is whether, on that day, the candidate has attained the minimum age.

🚨 Where it bites — a window of exactly one day

A candidate whose 21st birthday falls on 01.09.2026 — - per the deck → ineligible (he was not 21 on the last date of nomination) - per rule 13(1)(iii) → on the scrutiny date he has attained the age, so there is no ground to reject him — the rejection would be unlawful

⚖️ The only remedy is an election petition — nothing can be corrected before the poll. That is what makes this serious.

✔ But do not over-correct — three things on the deck are right

➡ Only the reckoning date needs changing — replace "on the last date of the nomination paper" with "on the date of scrutiny". Leave the rest of the slide alone.

---

Item 8 — ~~"section 21(f) of the Rules 1994"~~ — basis unverified ⚠️

The earlier version said a slide reads "section 21(f) of the Rajasthan Election Rules 1994". That slide could not be found in the DLMT material either (see the check under Item 7). 🚨 Do not act on this item.

What is independently true and may be taught (verified from the Manual) —

⚠️ If some district genuinely holds such an "important orders" slide, it is not part of the DLMT material in this archive. Send it across — only then can anything be said about it.

---

PART C — 🚨 Do NOT change these. They are not errors.

Treat this part as being exactly as important as Part A. In an earlier review two of these were wrongly called "errors". That was itself an error.

Item 9 — RO_p034 — the children column 🟡 this is not a ground of rejection

The agent review overstated this, calling it a "children declaration". It is in fact a column on a statistical form — not the section 24 declaration.

• Section 24(xvii) (more than two children) has been deleted by Act 7/2026
• ➡ Whether this column is filled in or left blank does not cause a nomination to be rejected

🚨 Do not teach ROs that a nomination can be rejected on the basis of this column.

---

Item 10 — the older decks' line "the Presiding Officer will press BALLOT" 🟡 not unlawful

Rule 37-A(2), original text:

"the elector … shall proceed to the Presiding Officer or to the polling officer in charge of the Control Unit of the voting machine who, by pressing the appropriate button on the Control Unit, shall activate the Balloting Unit."

➡ Conclusion: the Margdarsika does not "correct" the PRO position — it allocates the duty to PO-3. The older decks are not up to date; they are not unlawful. In class, say: "this is now the Third Polling Officer's job" — not "the old position was wrong".

---

Item 11 — RO_p014 🟡 this slide is correct — do not touch it

The agent review pointed at RO_p014 for a deposit-figure contradiction. I opened rule 22 and compared both slides: RO_p014 is correct; the error is on the neighbouring RO_p013. 👉 Part A, Item 2.

---

Item 12 — the Manual's rule 86(8) 🟡 a printing defect, not a defect in the law

On printed page 115 of the Manual, rule 86(8) appears as "Every person wishing to record his vote shall do in person can be introduced therein but cannot be withdrawn." — i.e. the tail of sub-rule (7) has been repeated into (8). The intended text is plainly "…shall do so in person."

This is a printing error in the Manual. Teach sub-rule (8) as "every person shall record his vote in person", and do not present it as a flaw in the law.

---

PART D — 🚨 At a glance (read before class)

---

PART E — ⚠️ The limits of this sheet (recorded honestly)

1. This is not a review of the whole DLMT material. It contains only the items I verified myself, by opening both the slide image and the original legal text — DLMT_VERIFIED.
2. The 27 other agent findings (DLMT_REVIEW_FULL, DLMT_REVIEW_PARTIAL) are still drafts. 14 of them were never checked at all, because the verification stage was capped. 🚨 Do not take them into training without opening the slide image.
3. Of the 7 agent claims that were checked, 1 was refuted (RO_p014) and 2 were overstated. 👉 Remember the ratio: roughly one in four agent claims needed correcting.
4. I found two errors myself that the agents had missed entirely — the RO_p013 deposit figures and the "memo first" point on RO_p076. So this list is not complete.
5. 🔴 A false error turned up inside this very sheet — on the same day. The first version called the Annexure-I ground on RO_p076 "unlawful". That was wrong — see the withdrawal box at §3.2. It was precisely the failure this sheet exists to prevent, and my own self-audit caught it. ➡ Conclusion: the four-class system is necessary but not sufficient. Opening the original order is the only final check.
6. A second false error is recorded at Part C, Item 10 (the BALLOT button).

---

Item 1-AM — 🚨 "Rule 45-A" — that rule no longer exists ⚠️ (new — 23.08.2026, verified first-hand)

Classification: this is NOT an "error" — it is a "dead cross-reference". 🔴 Nothing in the deck changes. This item exists so that you can answer when asked.

The question that will be asked

Both the Margdarsika (the chapter-1 box) and item 3 of Form 14-C say — "total number of voters not permitted to vote under rule 45-A".

🔴 The fact — I read it myself

The ULB Manual, Chapter III-A, prints this between rules 44-A and 46-A:

1[XXX 45-A deleted]

✅ The answer to give

"Rule 45-A stands deleted. The rule reference printed on the form is a label, not an instruction. Item 3 takes the figure the Margdarsika prescribes — those who signed the register and then did not cast a vote (No Vote). The arithmetic is unchanged — item 5 = item 2 − item 3 − item 4."

🚨 Never merge item 3 with item 4:

⚠️ Caution — this is the governing principle of this sheet. This item does not accuse the Commission of anything. The Margdarsika's direction is fully operative; only the rule number on the label is out of date. Change nothing in how the form is filled.

ℹ️ The same dead reference appears in rule 55(5)'s list, which also still prints "45 क".

Full treatment → EVM/en 08 §1.1

---

Item 1-AN — 🔴🔴 The ₹2 challenge deposit — the Margdarsika conflicts with rule 43(5) ⚠️ (new — 23.08.2026, verified first-hand)

Classification: 🔴 the most serious class — contrary to the rule. ⚠️ But it is NOT an error in our deck — the deck renders the Margdarsika verbatim. The conflict is between the Margdarsika and the rule.

Both texts — read first-hand

🔴 In the commonest case they point opposite ways

The challenge is established (the person really was an impostor): Margdarsika → ❌ forfeit · Rule 43(5) → ✅ return

🚨 So following the Margdarsika forfeits the money of the challenger who turned out to be RIGHT — the deposit exists to deter frivolous challenges, not to penalise a correct one.

✅ Why the rule governs

• Rule 43 applies at an EVM poll — rule 77-A's list of exceptions does not include 43
• A Margdarsika is guidance, not law
• 🔴 The Commission's own form agrees with the rule — Annexure-13's counterfoil itself says "under rule 43(5)"

🚨 What to do

1. 🔴 Get a written clarification from the DEO before the training — this is the first task. Do not contradict the Margdarsika single-handed in a classroom.
2. At the table — apply rule 43(5)'s test: "frivolous, or not in good faith?" → forfeit; otherwise return.
3. Record the reason in column 8 of Form-13 ("Order of Presiding Officer") — if you forfeit, use the rule's own words.
4. ✅ Relief: it is ₹2, and for an honest challenge that fails both roads reach the same place — a refund.

Full treatment → EVM/en 07 §2.3-A

---

Date: 21.08.2026 · last updated 23.08.2026 (items 1-D … 1-AM added after that date) Related: DLMT_VERIFIED (my own first-hand verifications — these are the evidence) · DLMT_REVIEW · DLMT_REVIEW_FULL (draft) · STATUS · ⛔ नवीनतम आदेश — जो मार्गदर्शिका और संकलन दोनों पर भारी पड़ते हैं · Hindi parallel — the operational sheet · Stale and defective citations in the official sources — a single register (stale citations in the official sources — one register)